we see the increase in pension contributions for a long-term system. >> each week, the house of commons is in session to hear the prime minister's questions. watch any time at c-span.org to see past questions and other british public affairs programs. nex axe talks tod soldiers, then at 11:00pm, q and a with scott miller. >> david axe was imbedded with the u.s. army in afghanistan. it is his fourth visit to the country. he spent time with the 4th

airbourne, patrolling in remote areas and engaging the security situation. obama announced a plan to bring 10,000 troops home from afghanistan by the end of the year. >> it depends on where you are. my experience is in the east. i have a little experience in the south. in the south, there is a lot of open combat. this is the headquarters of the taliban. >> in the east the violence depends on where you are. these to have strong relationships with kabul, with a lot of traffic. today, these are what i call,

bombing galleries, where the coalition troops and a large coalition presence is trying very hard to like this town in order to protect this. but every step that they take, they are threatened. thousands every year, that are killing hundreds of native troops, and many times the number of afghans. as we move closer to the border, and you had se, the threat will change. this is not so much ied's because there is less vehicle traffic. the coalition soldiers and the taliban will move on foot. the coalition has helicopters, but then they are back to walking around on foot. this is a lot less useful and

they are optimized for -- in places like this you see more small arms fire, lots of snipers. this looks like a street battle in world war two, on a smaller scale. people throwing grenades and things like this. on the coalition side, there is a great air power, when it comes to the helicopters and jet fighters. the tactical security threat to ask for these soldiers -- this is located in the eastern part

of afghanistan along the pakistan border. this is a critical area for the insurgents and the cross border infiltration and this is a historic avenue for movement from pakistan into afghanistan. in terms of the risk to u.s. troops, how will you characterize this? >> there is a significant amount of influx of insurgent fighters in the area, mostly from pakistan moving into afghanistan. >> tell us a little bit about your mission. >> this the standard reconnaissance mission, along the historic route from pakistan. the terrain is inaccessible, so we are going there to see what this looks like for a future clearing operation.

the major challenges the terrain, which is extreme and very difficult to move. and also, the people there have not seen the coalition presence in some time. >> what do you hope to achieve to the mission. >> to accept these conditions for future operations and build our awareness of the atmosphere, so that we can continue the operations there. this is for the clear insurgent presence in the area. >> how do you tell if you have succeeded? >> the numbers that occur in the area, we have received a lot of indirect artillery and rocket fire, and we want to get these

numbers to decrease. and also, the amount of in the material that we see moving farther into afghanistan. it will cross the border here. this has a significant impact on insurgent activity. >> richard. >> >> on april 4 and fifth, i was in bed with a unit of the 104th airborne -- airborne division, and there were trying to lock down the border between afghanistan and pakistan. these areas have seen no native soldiers at all. this was the parachute infantry regiment, occupying two mountaintops, one of these

border districts. the american and afghan troops would just find a good vantage point, and start looking around in the valley and on the road, looking into any compounds that they could see to get a sense of who lives here, what is the normal pattern of life, are there any major signs of the taliban, and if it is there, can we draw them out? and for two days in april we were there. the villagers sauce and the taliban launched a couple of rockets. nobody was hurt on either side. but this would be the first foray into a long-neglected

district, crossing over into afghanistan. >> see that there is the draw right there. >> this area -- we are here basically to stop the incoming traffic. certain traffic coming from pakistan into afghanistan, this is kind of their first place here, where we fight them off and keep them from going farther into the country. there is a route that comes through these areas, coming from pakistan into afghanistan. most of them are used for commerce. and this goes farther into the larger cities.

but they also use this to bring in a equipment to tackle the coalition forces. this is the biggest city in the area, with the most local populace. this is a center for trade and commerce in the area. and these provinces where nato has not had much of a presence until quite recently, these are the border provinces that only began getting a large number of troops in the past year. the population is not very friendly to the coalition. so the population will harbor fighters for the taliban, and they will hold weapons for them and are aware of taliban movements. the approach for this province is to target, in a sense, the civilian populations.

not with violence, but when they need intelligence -- you have to visit houses. you have to march out to where they are concentrated, to start knocking on doors, demanding to be let in. they will break the door down. but you knock on the door, trying to be as friendly as possible. you start asking hard questions to the people inside, who has been here, what is in that box over there, show me around. and unlocked the door. >> >> there is someone in there.

>> take it easy.

>> who is the village elder? [speaking foreign language] >> i will look him up and talk to him about this.

>> he was on the patrol -- >> a lot of the places like this are an endless, endless process of searching scores of identical kalats. you knock on the door and go in. a lot of locked boxes. find out what's inside, if they won't tell you. in 99% of cases, nobody will say anything. you can't find any evidence. nato knows it happens. the taliban is watching nato. they see nato move out and try to move the weapons and things. they -- it is this cat and mouse

game. the playing field is the homes of afluent civilians in these contested places. >> have you opened up this one, yet? >> we talked to them. what we will do is set up a support unit. >> we will go off of there. >> bravo three. sed to go --zed to g >> go ahead and break it down. get on the road. >> that high ground up there. we'll cover you going in and go back to the bazaar. >> ok. >> all right. >> i don't think by any metric,

people could argue there is less violence and attacks in afghanistan than ever. the number of civilians killed has only risen steadily through the war. the only way to say security is better is to interpret things different. there are more soldiers on the ground, more nato civilians and contractors. more coalition forces on the ground than ever. simply having a presence. more of them are dying and fighting. the taliban is no smaller than it has ever been. whethe

if they are doing a good job, it is hard to say. it is rare for afghan forces to go out on their own patrols. it is -- it is hard to say what is coming in afghanistan. we don't know what the war is going to look like with fewer nato troops and more afghan troops taking over daily responsibilities. >> freelance journalist david axe was imbedded with the troops in afghanistan, a regular contributor to "wired" and "the washington times." to see this again, go to c- span.org and go to the video

library, naand type "david axe." >> thaddeus mccodder announced he will run for the republican presidential nomination. from whitmore lake, michigan, this is about 10 minutes. >> freedom fest. yes. well played. taking heart despite the times and the weather. i will be brief today so nobody gets electrocuted.

i will introduce my wife, rita. . [applause] our daughter, amelia, who is thrilled to be here. our son, timothy, who is equally thrilled. and our son george is at work. which is something every american should have a chance to do. we here in michigan understand that our pursuit up prosperity and the american dream are in danger we have seen a government that has refused to restructure itself for the future as we next, as our families have.

we have seen a federal government that is trying to spend its way into prosperity with our money and it has failed. we have seen a federal government that has tried to impose government run health care upon us, despite the consent of the people, and it will fail. we have seen a government that has bought into the midst of cap and trade and climate change and it, too, will fail. and we have seen a government buy into the concept that the wall street banks are too big to fail, and that policy has failed. but the one thing that will not fail, for it is to majestic to ever letdown lady liberty, is you, the sovereign american people.

[cheers and applause] through your hard work in your principal devotion to bequeathing to your children a better america, have no doubt that we will restructure the government for the future so that it is citizen-driven. we will restructure the wall street banks so we can grow our economy and shape the next american economic century. [applause] we will defend america from her enemies, and we will always support our brave men and women in uniform that are sacrificing so much for our security and liberty.

we will expand freedom to the oppressed to ensure freedom at home for ourselves and we will stand steadfast with our allies in this endeavour, notably over deer ally, israel. [applause] and all those seeking to break off the shackles of oppression, be it in iran's green revolution or in a communist oppressed blends guzman revolution, or be it those who stand up to chavez or decastro in latin america. just as we did on july 2 when the founders came together to declare their love of liberty and their own independence. [applause]

because we understand five fundamental principles, our liberty is from god, not the government. our sovereignty is in our souls, not the soil or the scepter. our security is in strength, not appeasement or surrender. our prosperity is from the private sector, not the public sector. [applause] and our troops are self evident, not relative -- truths are self

evident, not a relative. these will guide us as we move forward into the future, a future which many in this country believe will be one of diminished opportunity for the people of the united states and the next generation. i fundamentally disagree. for those who put their faith in big government, that might make sense, but -- that our best days are behind us, but for those who put their faith in the american people, we know that what we have a hard road ahead, we will have better days, and we will start now. [applause] too many americans, too many families, too many people are

worried about whether or not they are still sovereign in their country, whether or not there is a new concept that worked were some individuals are considered disposable citizens, where they are too small to matter. they are wrong. every single one of you, every single american is the fate and future of this country, and what we need in washington is someone who understands that the wave of the future is not big government, it is self government. someone in washington who will truly feel and understand the pain and anguish of 14 million unemployed americans, the feeling of being trapped of up to million -- 30 million

americans who cannot find jobs because they are not there. people who understand that when inflation is rising and wages are declining, people who need to know that someone in washington, no matter how derided or disposable someone else thinks you are, will stand for you. that is why today i am announcing my candidacy for the nomination of my republican party to serve as your president of thenited states. [cheers and applause]

remember, the storms are coming. you may interpret it as any type of zero men that you wish. >> remember, the storms are coming. you can see tha tat as any omen you wish. once more, from the grace of god and the virtue of the free people. we will again be a more prosperous, inspiration that will show the world what free people can achieve.

thank you for having me. i look forward to playing with the band. she is still not thrilled to be here. >> you did that without a teleprompter. did you notice that? >> i will hijack this music stand here.

♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> c-span has launched a new easy to navigate web site on politics in the 2012 presidential race, with information from the campaign

trail, twitter feeds from politicians and reporters, and links to media partners in the early primary and caucus states. this is the best that -- visit us at the website listed on your screen. >> tim pawlenty outlined his foreign-policy positions at a speech on tuesday. in his remarks, he criticized the foreign policies of president obama and republican party leaders. the former minnesota governor is campaigning for the republican presidential nomination in 2012. this event at the council on foreign relations is an hour. >> good morning. thank you for being here. i appreciate it. i am delighted to have a chance to share my views about the most pressing foreign policy issues that challenge the united states of america. foreign policies of president obama.

>> advance in the cause of th i am grateful for the hospitality from the council of foreign relations. sence here this morning. i want to speak plainly about a number of opportunities and dangers we face today in the middle east. we have a situation where the revolutions now roiling that region offer the promise of a more democratic, more open, and more prosperous arab world. from morocco to the arabian gulf, the escape from the dead hand of oppression is now a real possibility. now is not the time to retreat from freedoms rise. yet, at the same time, we know these revolutions can bring to power forces that are neither democratic nor forward-leaning. just as the people of egypt, tunisia, libya, syria, and

elsewhere see a chance for a better life of genuine freedom, the leaders of radical islam see a chance to rise political turmoil into power. the united states has a vital stake in the future of this region. we have been presented with a challenge as great as any we face in recent decades. and we must get it right. the question is -- are we up to the challenge? my answer is of course we are. if we're clear about our interests and guided by our principles, we can help steer events in the right direction. our nation has done this in the past. at the end of world war ii, in the last decade of the cold war, in the most recent war on terror and we can do it again. but president obama has failed to formulate and carry out an

effective and coherent strategy in response to these events. he has been timid, slow, and too often without a clear understanding of our interests. our clear commitment to our principles and parts of the republican party now seem to be trying to outbid the democrats in appealing to isolationist sentiments. this is no time for uncertain leadership in either party. the stakes are too high. and the opportunity is simply too great. no one in this administration predicted the events of the arab spring. but the freedom deficit in the arab world was no secret. for 60 years, western nations excused and accommodated the lack of freedom in the middle east. that could not last. the days of comfortable private deals with the dictators were coming to an end in the age of

twitter, youtube, and facebook. and history teaches that there is no such thing as stable oppression. president obama ignored that lesson of history. instead of promoting democracy, whose fruit we see now ripening across the region, he adopted a murky policy. he called it engagement. engagement meant that, in 2009, when the iranian ayatollah still an election and the people of the country rose up in protest, president obama held his tongue. his silence validated the mullets, despite blood on their hands and nuclear centrifuges in their tunnels. while protesters were killed and tortured, secretary clinton said the administration was "waiting to see the outcome of the internal iranian processes. she and the president waited long enough to see the green

revolution, the green movement crushed. engagement also meant that, in his first year in office, president obama cut democracy funding for the egyptian society by 74%. as one american democracy organization noted, this was perceived as signaling a lack of support. they perceive correctly. it was a lack of support. in engagement also meant that, when crisis erupted in cairo this year as tens of thousands of protesters gathered in liberty square, secretary clinton declared "the egyptian government is stable. two weeks later, mubarak was gone. when secretary clinton visited cairo after the move barak fall, activist groups refused to meet with her. who can blame them? the forces we now need to

succeed in egypt, the pro- democracy secular political party is, these are the very people president obama cut off and secretary clinton dismissed. the obama engagement policy in syria who led the administration to call the sheer allis not a reformer, even as his regime was shooting protesters dead in the street. president obama announced his plan to give them "alternative vision of himself. does anyone outside of a therapist's office have any idea what that means? this is what passes for moral clarity in the obama administration. by contrast, i called for his departure on march 29. a call for it again today. we should recall our master from damascus and i call for that again today. the leader of the united states

should never leave those willing to sacrifice their lives in the cause of freedom wondering where america stands. as president, i will not. we need a president who folia understands that american never leads from behind. we cannot underestimate how pivotal this moment is in the least tern history. we need decisive, clear right leadership that is responsive to this historical moment of change in ways that are consistent with our deepest principles and safeguards our vital interest. >> the government of the middle east fallen to four broad categories and each requires a different strategic approach.

the first consists of three countries in various stages of transition toward democracy. before myrlie fake republics in egypt, tunisia, and libya. iraq is also in this category. for these countries, our goal should be to help promote freedom and democracy in the region. elections have produced anti- democratic regimes undermine both freedom and stability. we must do more than monitor polling places. we must redirect foreign aid away from efforts. we must direct those efforts toward building the allies. governed by free people according to the rule of law. we must insist that the international partners get of the sidelines and do the same.

we should have no illusions about the difficulty of the transitions face had by libya, tunisia, and especially egypt. whereas libya is rich in oil and indonesia is small, among the regions of the emerging democracies, it remains the biggest opportunity of the biggest danger for american interests. too many egyptians are now rejecting the beginnings of the economic opening engineer in the last decade. we act out of friendship when we tell egyptians and every new democracy that economic growth and prosperity are the result of free markets and free trade. not subsidies in the foreign aid. if we want these countries to

succeed, we must afford them the respect of telling them the truth. in libya, the best of america can provide this to stop the bleeding from behind and commit to the strength of removing gadhafi. beyond libya, america should always promotion of universal principles. we should press new friends to end discrimination against women, established independent courts, and the press. and we must insist on religious freedoms for all.

the second category of faith in the arab monarchies. some are engaging tell in what looks like a genuine reform. this should earn at our praise and our assistance. they must forge a partnership with their own people leading a step-by-step toward more democratic societies. the to understand these changes. and thereby deepen their own legitimacy if they choose this route. they deserve our help. others are resisting reform. president obama spoke about brain in his recent speech, he neglected to other two important words. saudi arabia. u.s. and saudi relations are at

all-time low. they're going downhill long before the uprisings began. they saw the american administration yearning to engage iran at the time that they correctly saw ahead as a mortal enemy. we need to tell them what we think which will only be effective if we have a position of trust with them. you will develop it by demonstrating that we share the great concern about iran. and we are committed to doing all that is necessary to defend the region from iranian aggression. at the same time, we need to be frank about what they must do in their own country. above all, they need the reform and open society. their treatment of questions,

other minorities, and of women is indefensible and must change. we of the reform will come to saudi arabia sooner and more smoothly if the royal family to accept and designed in. it will come later if they resist. the vast wealth of their country should be used to support reforms. but not as a substitute for lasting reform. the third category consists of states that are directly hostile to america. they include iran and syria. as already vastly undermine the appeal. and the killing have significantly weakened it. the success of peaceful

protests has shown the world of terror is not only evil, but will eventually be overcome by good. peaceful protests may soon bring down the regime in syria. the 2009 protests inspire them to seek freedom. similarly, the protests of this year and the fault of the regime can inspire them once again. we have an interest in seeing an end to his regime and. the obama administration has not only frustrated syrians fighting for freedom, it has demonstrated a strategic blindness. the government of iran and syria are enemies of the united states.

they're not reformers and never will be. to weaken or replace one who is to weaken or replace the other. the fall of the mafia and damascus would weaken the headquarters there. and it would weaken the iranian regime itself. take advantage of this moment, we should press every diplomatic and economic shanahan to bring the reign of terror to end. the more forceful sanctions. thus the need to work live turkey in the era of nations to further isolate the regime and we need to encourage opponents by making our own position very

clear right now. when he goes, how they will find themselves isolated and vulnerable. syria is their only ally. if we deal the way, it will hasten the fall. that is the ultimate goal we must pursue. but as the opportunity offered by the brave men and women of the arab spring. the march of freedom in the middle east cut across the diversity of religious and political groups. it is born of a particular unity. it is a united front from stolen elections and stolen liberty. secret police, corruption, and the state sanctioned violence. this is a moment to ratchet up

pressure and to speak with clarity. more sanctions, more and better broadcasting into iran, more assistance to access the internet and satellite tv. more efforts -- very critically, we must have more clarity when it comes to the nuclear program. in 2008, barack obama said that he would always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and israel. this year, he said that we remain committed to preventing iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

even our closest allies are confused. for which legal authority already exists, we should enact and enforce a new pending legislation the strength in some sanctions, particularly against the revolutionary guards that control much of the economy. in the middle of all of this is israel. israel is unique in the region because of what it stands for. and what it has accomplished. and is unique in the threat of annihilation. it has long been a bastion of democracy in our region of tyranny and violence. it is by far the closest ally in

that part of the world. despite nemours, a tax of various forms, israel offers all of its citizens, including 1.5 million arabs of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and the right to vote as well as access to independent courts. and all other democratic rights. nowhere has president obama's lack of judgment and then more stunning than in his dealings with israel. it breaks my heart that the president of this country treats israel, our great friend has a problem, rather than as an ally. the president seems to genuinely believe that the palestinian conflict lies at the heart of every problem of the middle east. he said in cairo in 2009 and again this year.

president obama could not be more wrong. the uprisings are not about israelis and palestinians. they are about oppressed people yearning for freedom and prosperity. whether those countries become prosperous and free is not about how many apartments israel built in jerusalem. today, the president doesn't really have a policy toward the peace process. he has an attitude. let's be frank about what bad attitude is. he thinks israel is the problem and he thinks the answer is always more pressure on israel. i reject that anti-israel attitude. i rejected because israel is a close and reliable democratic allies. i know the people of israel wants peace.

israeli-palestinian peace is further away now that the way that barack obama came to office. it doesn't have to be permanent. we must recognize that peace will only come if everyone in the region receives clearly that america stands strongly with israel. i would take a new approach. why would never undermine the negotiating position or pressure to accept borders which jeopardize security and its ability to defend itself. second, i would not pressure israel to negotiate with a palestinian government that includes hamas. in short, they need to cease being a terrorist group in both word and deed as a first step

toward global legitimacy. i would insure assistance to the palestinians with the teaching of hatred and palestinian huss firms continues. that must end of. i would recommend cultivating end of power in modern forces in the palestinian society. when they have leaders that are honest and capable, who appreciate the rule of law and understands that the war has given them to lives of the goodness, of violence, and poverty, peace will come. released is changing before our very eyes. the government has not kept up. it abandoned of the promotion of democracy just as they were

about to seize its. just as their own people rose against them. in downplayed our principles and distance us from key allies. these policies have failed. the administration has abandoned the danaher and of the price of the american leadership in the region. in a region that has looked to us for security and progress, and the wonders where we are and what we are of two. the next president must do better. today, in our own republican party, some of back and conclude our projection of strain in defense of freedom was a product of different times in different challenges. while times have changed, the nature of the challenge has not. in the 1980's, we were up

against a violent totalitarian ideology been done subjugating the people in the principles of the west. while others sought to coexist, president reagan instead sought victory. so must we, today. america is exceptional and we have a moral clarity to lead the world. it is not wrong for republicans to question the conduct of president obama's leadership in libya. it is not wrong for republicans to debate the timing of our military drawdown in afghanistan. my belief is that the general's voice should carry the most weight. what is wrong as for the republican party to shrink from the challenges of american leadership in the world. history repeatedly warns us

that in the long run, weakest and foreign policy cost us and our children much more than we will ever say in the budget -- saved in the budget line item. america has one political party devoted to decline and withdrawal. it doesn't need a second one. our enemies respect and respond to strength. sometimes strength means military intervention. sometimes it means diplomatic pressure. that always means moral clarity in word and deed. that is the legacy of republican foreign policy at its best in our next republican president must carry the banner around the world. of equality and opportunity for all citizens, it remains a dream for people in the middle east

and around the world. as america stands for these principles and stands with our friends and allies, the middle east will transform this moment of turbulence into a more lasting opportunity for freedom, peace, and progress. i look forward to your questions and the discussion. [applause] >> have declined, retrenchment, and with a role. really? >> here are some examples the support that characterization. at a minimum, the commander in chief needs to lend more clarity

and rhetorical strength to the values and principles that we support and embrace here and around the world. at the beginning of the green revolution when people were standing, asking where the united states stands and the president stands essentially new on those issues, that is a form of withdrawal, retrenchment. when you have the president of the of the states take the recommendation of the most forward leaning and impact full military leader in afghanistan when he calls for the complement of surge troops to be a round out their maximum level of little while longer, not for 10 years or 20 years' worth of nation building. but the logical and intermediate next step goal of making sure the security forces are trained in volume and quality so that it

can reasonably take up more of the charge and the challenge of security and afghanistan. notwithstanding that recommendation and compared to the political calendar, it strikes me as something that is a sense of with a droll, retrenchment, and decline. the list goes on. we have the president of the united states saying to syria -- is an enabler to terrorism, send an ambassador back to damascus, refuses to address in any moral clarity, all of those things support that statement. >> america is exceptional and we have a moral clarity to lead the world. what is the moral clarity? >> that we and other developed nations to support these principles and more.

human rights. free and fair elections, the free flow of information. the ability for people to express themselves freely and associate freely. those are values and principles that we can speak to a moral clarity because they are our boundaries. when people oppressed them in tyrannical ways, we should speak to that. we have more clarity to do that. >> who have dealt with the tension between the -- >> they are universal values as well. >> the security issues that arise, what do you do about a state? you mentioned radical islam early on. would you do to oppose those that oppose the united states and its interests?

they have become what they believe they should be and pose a threat to the united states. >> which state would you highlight as an example of that? >> you are speaking about a list of principles by which you would govern, and the tension between freedom and security is a perennial one. at what point do you draw the line. >> a cut you meant a state that had a democratic resolved. the categories i put forward was this. there at the doorstep of freedom. we have these long-standing monarchies. they have been somewhat or partially friendly to the invited states, but you can see the handwriting on the law -- on the wall.

and maybe a year, 10 years, 20 or 30. there is a continuum to where they are and more shared power with the people. we use the leverage that we have economically, socially, and beyond to move them as constructively as possible to a better place of shared power with the people. live states that are directly threatening to the united states that included syria, iran, and hopefully not yet yemen. the need to be dealt with -- there recognize their great ally that shares the valley. we need to stand shoulder to shoulder with them as we confront in the embrace the challenges and opportunities of the region. these essence of your question is where is the dividing line

between democracy and tyranny have you can't flip a switch overnight and to move his starkly to radical governments to democracy. but you can use what is available to try to pressure them, encourage them, inspire them to move down the continuum towards democracy. it doesn't happen overnight. look at serbia, look at kosovo and bosnia. these are 10, 20, multi decade projects. they take a sustained and persistent commitment in the country. reagan did great work in romania, poland, afghanistan part one. not but always using explicit military intervention, but over time, it changed the country. this starts with a president

that is going to lend moral clarity, strength of vision, strength of values so that the individuals that are dreamers in those countries hear the voices and no aspiration only had to directionally that we stand with them. >> you've made a very him -- very interesting historical linkage early on. i am taking it as three examples of equivalent triumphs. defined the war on terror and what you would do in the next phase of that. >> this is not a known beginning and end to this yet. we are accustomed to a mind-set where people might see a clear beginning and a clear and to the

challenge and the need. it is likely going to be transnational. it is going to be multi year if not multi decade. it will be episodic. the threat will take different forms in different places at different times. it will be asymmetrical and it will be different as we although events of the historic examples that you have cited. we need to ready ourselves for that future. there is only one person that can educate and raise awareness and remind the american people about the importance of this cause and the environment and risks making sure that we remain vigilant. the people that killed 3000 of our citizens of the timber a eleventh 2001 still exists.

their mindset still exists. and as soon as they have the are opportunity to kill not 3000 and but 30 million or 300 million, they will try. this may not be just about an orderly and reasonable and successful drawdown of the troops in afghanistan. this is going to be about having the determination to see this threat, call it by name, identify it wherever it exists and defeat it before it manifest itself in a way that is threatening to the security interests of the united states. that will require persistence, diligence over a long and episodic. of time. does not the direction this president is headed in my view. that is not the direction that a good chunk of even the republican party seems to be

headed. i take sharp issue with both. >> please state your name and affiliation, start here. >> think you for your remarks. i wonder if you can shed some light on your support for the idea, who are the change agents. if he is no longer in power, would be acceptable to washington is the individual in whatever capital may be. or someone that can be something else. how'd you have visibility on a change agent that nobody in the country really has right now. the premise is how to guarantee

something. the answer is that there is ultimately no guarantee in these uncertain situations. when you are navigating into certain situations. you have to make sure that your compass is set to true north. make sure you have a president that annunciated in articulate forcefully and repeatedly what the values and interests really are. what comes after hitler? what can happen after that? he was awful and needed to go. take libya as one example of many. each of these cultures are different with different histories. they have to be done

strategically, but ultimately won at a time. at least a significant chunk are western educated in the seemed to generally desire freedom or democracy. it will be in competition between the former and the latter? yes. assuming that he is going ago to try to maximize the odds of the folks that are favorable to our values prevail? yes. is there an absolute guarantee? it does not work like that. it does not mean that we retreat and ducked under the table. this does not mean that we invade it militarily every country. there are a lot of levers that you can pull that will influence

the course of these countries. can we guarantee the outcome? ho. but once the president of the united states says that he has got to go, you can't let him from his nose at the president of the united states and the free world. leaving him there and definitely is not an option. if someone would argue that we don't have a vital interest before, we have one now. one of his main motivation is going to be retaliation, and guess who is going to be against. letting him linder indefinitely while the president brings his hands about what to do that is not a good idea. he needs to go. >> as you look back, you think

your foreign policy approach would have more in common with george h. w. bush or george w. bush? >> collected believe i would have my own foreign policy, and that it would reflect on the best of the successes of our country. and there are positive examples in both of those administrations from challenges as well obviously. i don't think it is one or the other. a thick there are strong and positive elements in both. these are complex issues and complex parts of the world have lots of nuance. to suggest a doctrine for the region that is cut her is under utilization of our ability, capability, and are thoughtfulness. there are elements of both.

right're not in a primary now, are you? >> just to get away from the middle east for a moment, whatever policy toward north korea be different from what ever the policy is today? [laughter] >> north korea is one of the most concerning challenges that we face in the foreign-policy arena. i think that north korea will most likely best respond to a multifaceted approach, prominent when an important rule ha for china in that discussion. it is not the only lever, but it is a mature and clever. the have control over whether china in search of more influence in that discussion,

but we need them to be involved. we don't advocate, the fur, or 72 cut. you're dealing with a leadership structure that is fragile, uncertain, potentially erratic, her unpredictable. again, when you're facing these difficult situations, we have to give back to articulating what we stand for and what we believe. first of all, articulate it, and second of all, are there ways to influence in. the goal is not poland or afghanistan, but to the extent we have levers, whether the implicit or a necklace to try to change north korea in internally, that is a good option for us. we are going to be helped in the region. we have people that are particularly connected to north

korea. but that the transition in south korea. great success has been made there, a different approach. dallas in just the reagan gave a seat in a good blueprint about how to influence events in such a country they you're worried about. >>-with fox news. when you talk about gadhafi must go, it is easy to say, he has proven to be much more difficult. how would you deal with this with the more specificity of how you would get him to go. and boots on the ground, special operations forces, more of the same?

the nisei and hard to do if he decides he doesn't want to go. >> be consistent and clear about your expectations. egypt we have an 82-year-old that if it is a revolution or heart attack or something, was not long for that position. what was the plan between a 30 + year decatur and chaos. there wasn't one. he thought it was this kid. that wasn't going to work either. as it unfolds in a number of the moment towards the end, we have me,ident biden -- excuse vice president biden say mubark ak wasn't a dictator. the muslim brotherhood is a

largely secular organization. really? don't worry, the situation in egypt is stable. as mentioned in my remarks, no, it wasn't. how was the colorful as we reach out to the people on this tree. helen davis-some event in in egypt, or any of -- in europe. gibbs says mubarak must now go. and we mean yesterday. and then someone goes and whispers to a designee. in the early days, hours, and weeks of this event, we had a very confused and uncoordinated and unclear and hesitant

administration. clearly, he was a dictator not long for his position. leakey be in the business before chaos of trying to have a capacity in place or a better way forward for egypt. that took care of itself and terms of the events on the ground. we better be helping out with others that are in the business of trying to build democratic capacity in egypt. will maximize the likelihood that that will actually happen. to this day, and this administration until recently would not utter the words that he needs to go and he needs to kill him. they implied that there was still high and for him to renew himself. the mean that we're going to use military force in syria? not necessarily. are there other things that we

can do to try to effectuate change. this administration is reluctant to do it, doesn't see it, doesn't want to do it. doesn't leave how he has the leadership role in in. and this is not afghanistan, this is a relatively simple place of graphically. i'm not suggesting any boots on the ground, but the united states and its allies would have to go, he would be gone. and the ku said that essentially, you have a certain number of days in the year affairs in order. you can go the easy way or the hard way. ronald reagan tried to kill him in the 80's. he is a terrorist and now he is an indicted war criminal. >> would you have tried to follow the war powers

resolution in libya military action? ' reserve the prerogative and the war powers the close not apply. in the case that it might and out of courtesy, i would have more fully consulted with them because the case could have been presented successfully as a courtesy to congress, not necessarily as a legal obligation. i think he had a couple of leaders over for sandwiches. i think a strong case can be made on the merits that what we did in libya was the correct course. on march 7, they threatened a no-fly zone and he was on the ropes. the rebels had the momentum.

he was openly talking about leaving voluntarily. hadley seized the moment, we could have got him out without much fanfare. the president did for the better part of the month waiting for the united nations, regrouping, regaining momentum and taking back more than half of the country. and give us a more complicated situation than we now have. as it relates to the case that should have been made as a courtesy in a gesture of respect, i would have done that. i did not say that it was required by the war powers act. >> we have a question from penn state. he said iraq was a shining example of the middle east. a number of experts thought that the majority was going to eliminate the minority are

dropping them out of the country or worse. for whom is a rack a shining example? >> for those that like democracy, more open societies, increasing appreciation for democratic institutions and principles. is a racket guaranteed to be a shining example forever? though. is it better than it was in recent years? absolutely. this is on a continuing and got a moment in time. if you look around the middle east with the exception of israel and turkey in you're trying to rank haitians that are next on the progress meter in terms of movement towards the like, you will put iraq moving in the right direction. in light of other challenges are within iraq, we don't know the answer to that.

in this moment of time, it can and has been made in a difficult region with the complex and seemingly insurmountable history. absolutely. >> i want to ask a question that john asked you about states that democratically choose leaders who are opposed to american values in the conundrum. i assume that one of the reasons the obama hesitation -- edit illustration hesitated, they thought it could be more anti- american and anti-israel. do you have a reason to think that that is wrong? or if it is correct, are you saying that the united states should be prepared to pay that strategic prize for the

important moral gain of having a more democratic are you asserting that the elections in egypt were legitimate? >> it is broadly anti-american. for reasons having to deal with israel and other things, a democratic collection -- election will bring to power more that are anti-american than the autocratic regimes. it might be a price the united states has to pay in order to bring about a more democratic and middle east. a if you have reason to think that it is not such a price, or is it is a price worth paying? >> you have to look at this over time.

we have monarchies, for example, there was hoyle tolerated and supported -- and engaged over many years and many decades. the argument for not pressuring them to much for change is that they have accommodated us with respect to our security interests. it has been oversimplified, but i've been that is the essence of what you're describing. the next question is, how much longer in the world of social networking, instant media, is that sustainable? if you believe it is not in the intermediate and long-term sustainable, harley best served to least try to move those countries and down the continuing towards a better future so the transition can be orderly, predictable, unlikely successful that have that erupt

in a cataclysmic moment of revolution who, the debris and political debris for which is uncertain? as what i tried to describe in the remarks, and i hope you combat. the point wasn't to say to the third group marquise that we're going to demand or otherwise require you to quickly switch. what i am trying to say if you think about, even in the realm of monarchies, have current middle eastern monarchies of the way to spain for the uk. over a reasonable time, with our friendship, relationship, leverage, and hopefully increasing the share value, then we move them on a continuum? it begins to convince the people

of how there is no in an orderly fashion. it decreases the likelihood of a dramatic or catastrophic a moment for which outcome is uncertain. that is what i am trying to describe. keep in mind the failed states and those that have already gone through the revolution. >> you're not trying to send a message to elizabeth ii? [laughter] watch out. you're with us or against us. i knew we'd get kate middleton in here somehow. >> you imply in your remarks, the answer to one of the more follow up questions that secretary clinton and the president were to slow to embrace in support the reform

movement in egypt. what do you make of the argument that we were too quick as a country to abandon our ally of 35 years, and by not having what you just described, the orderly transition to have access opening dramatically and it could and threaten the state of israel. >> his days were numbered any way you cut them. caught in the revolution, elections, or through human life expectancy expands sometime in the next few years. the question wasn't whether he was going to go, the question was what would happen once he went. it happened war suddenly because of the revolution. when you have 32 years' worth of his reign, featuring things

like the 2010 parliamentary elections which are clearly still lend, which are unquestionably stolen by any reasonable and fair minded assessment. the united states of america says nothing and a pretty powerful signal. is that he only thing that led to the problems that mubarak had? no. was it the straw that broke the camel's back or the mass that got thrown into the kindling? -- match that got thrown into the kindling? maybe. it was 32 years worth of the vial of rights, secret police, still elections. if you do that long enough, and eventually, you're going to have a problem. it is inevitable and undeniable.

that same pattern will, for every one of those countries in the region and eventually. thequestion isn't what is outcome, the question is, can we make the outcome more orderly, predictable, stable, secure. more oriented towards the security interests of the united states. i don't accept the premise that one option was to lead him around. he wasn't around anyway you cut it. >> thank you for a thoughtful morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]